Family members of Colombians killed by left-wing guerrillas and the AUC paramilitary group brought ATS, TVPA, state law, and Colombian law claims against Chiquita, a company that provided substantial support to both left-wing guerrilla groups and the AUC.

Eleventh Circuit Decision in Chiquita Alien Tort Status Litigation

July 25, 2014 Washington, D.C.— On July 24, 2014, in a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the cases against Chiquita Brands International for human rights violations in Colombia. The Court dismissed the cases for lack of jurisdiction based on the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., which held that claims brought under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) must have a significant connection to the United States. In mechanically applying Kiobel to Plaintiffs´ ATS claims in Chiquita, the Eleventh Circuit panel ignored the major distinctions between the two cases, including that the defendant in Kiobel was a Dutch-British national and all of the relevant conduct took place in Nigeria. Chiquita is a U.S. company that pled guilty in U.S. criminal court for funding a terrorist paramilitary organization in Colombia, and the decisions made by Chiquita that led to the human rights violations against Plaintiffs were made in the U.S. and funded from the U.S. The thousands of Plaintiffs who had family members murdered in Colombia due to Chiquita’s collaboration with terrorist paramilitaries plan to seek further review in the Eleventh Circuit, and if necessary, the Supreme Court.

The Eleventh Circuit also failed to address two other claims made by the Plaintiffs against Chiquita that are not dependent upon the ATS. First, the Plaintiffs made claims under state law and the law of Colombia for wrongful death and other common tort claims and the court has jurisdiction over those claims. Second, they made claims against individual Chiquita officers who were involved in funding the Colombian terrorist organization under a different U.S. law, the Torture Victims Protection Act, which remain viable.

While the Plaintiffs are disappointed in this setback to their ATS claims, they will make every effort to have that decision reversed, but will in any case continue to move forward to trial with their remaining claims.